G SUNDARESAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be a PWD Contractor, who undertook the work of improvements to the Kilikolloor Perinadu Road from Km 0/000 to 4/450. The petitioner has produced on record as Ext.P1, which is a copy of the Selection Notice issued by the third respondent/Superintending Engineer, PWD Roads and Bridges, Thiruvananthapuram, awarding the work to him and he further says that the estimate of the said work is about Rs. 2,29,00,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that even though he has completed the work to the full satisfaction of the concerned Authorities within the time sanctioned to him under the award of work, an amount of nearly Rs. 16.5 Lakhs has been refused from his final bill, by the Authorities maintaining that under the contract, they are entitled to recover 10% as contractor's profit and another 10% as Over Head charges. He says that the refusal on the part of the respondents to pay this amount is illegal and unlawful, because the entire materials for the work was arranged by himself and that there was no supply from the side of the department. According to him, such a recovery could have been made by the Department only if the materials had been supplied by them and if the contractors' had obtained the Bitumen from the Department. The petitioner points out that when his claims were verified by the third respondent/Superintending Engineer on 19.04.2013, culminating in Ext.P5 minutes, the recovery towards 10% contractors profit and 10% over head charges for Bitumen was accepted, even though it was specifically recorded therein that there was no department supply of materials, and that the contractor/petitioner herein has arranged for the same on his own. Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the competent Authorities to pay the petitioner all eligible amounts under these heads, which he assesses to be nearly Rs. 16,40,507/-.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, says that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent wherein the following averments have been specifically made in paragraph No.5 therein: